Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Not Quite Mainstream OSes => Topic started by: Zombie9920 on 25 August 2003, 00:54
-
Look at these AmigaOS 4 screenshots. Is it just me or does it look kinda like MacOS X without Aqua, Quartz and Mac style icons(more like Linux style icons)?
Personally, I think it looks terrible.
http://os.amiga.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1805&highlight= (http://os.amiga.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1805&highlight=)
[ August 24, 2003: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
Meh, as long as it gets the job done...
On the plus side it probably needs very little computing horsepower to run.
-
Many people loved the Amiga, and still do today. It had 4096 colours and 3d and other graphical capabilities which no computer can reproduce even today. And that was in 1985, when PC's were running DOS and Macintoshes were in black and white. There was a time where there were more Amiga games than PC games, many of which were ported from the Amiga. The interface, however, was terrible. About as ugly, if not uglier, than Windows 1.0 (although much more functional).
http://toastytech.com/guis/wb_10.gif (http://toastytech.com/guis/wb_10.gif)
The one below is Workbench 3.0, shortly after the release of Windows 3.0:
http://toastytech.com/guis/thumbwb_30.gif (http://toastytech.com/guis/thumbwb_30.gif)
I haven't used an Amiga, but I'm sure it has its merits. After all, it was thanks to sheer love for the Amiga platform that it still lives today, despite the demise of Commodore.
-
It would be nice if we could get more operating systems that were user friendly besides os ten, windows and all those many flavors of linux.
I wish i could go to the store and have 20 different kick ass operating systems to choose from. But no ...
I wish i could go back in time and prevent microsoft from gaining a monopoly.
-
It doesn't look that bad, just minimalist. And the brightness needs a bit of upping... Ah brings back fond memories of my Amiga 600... "left click to continue, right click to abort." [sigh] (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
Look at these AmigaOS 4 screenshots. Is it just me or does it look kinda like MacOS X without Aqua, Quartz and Mac style icons(more like Linux style icons)?
Personally, I think it looks terrible.
http://os.amiga.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1805&highlight= (http://os.amiga.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1805&highlight=)
[ August 24, 2003: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
that's really nice compared with years and years ago when i last used an amiga!
it doesn't really look good though. i mean my windowmaker setup is minimalist but in my opinion it looks really nice, while this... doesn't to be frank. (btw http://calumnine.cjb.net/wmaker2003.jpg (http://calumnine.cjb.net/wmaker2003.jpg) to see a wmaker screenie)
but as far as i know the AmigaOS is limited to be an 8 bit OS (is this right?) while linux is 32/64/128 bit, so really it's not a fair contest.
It does look like KDE 1 though, just a bit.
-
quote:
but as far as i know the AmigaOS is limited to be an 8 bit OS (is this right?)
No it's not. Amiga OS has been 32 bit since 1985. And it is, from what I've heard, just as customisable, if not more, than Windowmaker or even KDE.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7: Defender of Canada:
Many people loved the Amiga, and still do today.
I was amazed that the CGI from "Seaquest DSV" was all done on an Amiga.
-
because Amigas rule. in a similar vein, the Macintosh Quadra 660av and 840av have very similar features (integrated A/V DSP chips, et cetera)
-
Amigas were used for all of the CGI in the first series of Babylon 5 too, after that some Pentiums etc. were brought into the render farm too for more grunt, although I believe the artists still used the Amigas for modeling.
For 9 galleries worth of people customising existing versions of AmigaOS see:
Amiga Future Workbench Gallery (http://www.amigafuture.de/interactive/workbench.php)
-
Hey Bouncing Ayatollah,
How's it going, sweet pics. I miss my Amiga she was a honey :D
Sorry not been in touch, work, work, work, work...
21 12 hour shifts in the last 23 days looks like @ least 3 weeks to go. Still make hay while the sun shines...
Hark I hear the dinging of a cash register form upon far!
I'll give ya a call when the contract ends
Later my friend
Sime
-
@sime
Cheers for that, I've been a bit busy too...
I miss the Amiga way of doing things, but the Classic Amiga is not fast enough now for number crunching tasks.
No IRQs, no "you must restart", no blue screens, you "install" something usually by unarchiving it and putting it somewhere and uninstall it by errr... deleting it, no registry, no "hidden files", no Spyware, no "scanning for new hardware" just plug it in and switch on, no stuttering sound and skipping video as "just the way it is", no floppy drive that goes WAGGADAGGADAGGA! and freezes the WHOLE machine for a couple of seconds, no CD spin-up that freezes the whole machine (again), add a program to startup by dropping it in Wbstartup and remove it by moving it out of Wbstartup and so on... and if you want the command line you have the AmigaShell. It just ... works.
AmigaOS4 is undeniably a "catch up" release, hopefully by 4.1, 4.2 and the mythical completely new approach of OS5 (if it happens) AmigaOS will again be a feasible option with some real grunt under the bonnet.
When I watched the video mentioned in these forums of Yellowtab Zeta (playing 5 mpegs simultaneously and an MP3 at the same time) I thought "YEAH! That's what I thought it would be like when I got the first P233 machine...". I simply couldn't understand how a machine that had SO MUCH horsepower could be soooo slow, let alone my 2GHz PC which is still thrown by a floppy disk.
-
The Amiga OS used to be contained in a ROM, in order to upgrade it you had to install a new ROM chip (or burn a new image to it). I don't know if it's still done this way, but I thought that was a smart way to do it.
-
nobody does it like that anymore. Even Apple doesn't use the Mac ROM anymore. ROMs are loaded into RAM from a file on the HD, and that's only in the classic OS. OS X doesn't do that.
Since AmigaOS 4 runs on very similar boards to Power Macs, with really nothing more than OpenFirmware boot ROMs, I'm betting that Amiga doesn't have their ROM either.
Besides... Amiga OS 4 is built on the Linux kernel I believe.
As for some of the more high-performance abilities, I do believe Mac OS 8.6 and 9.x both are able to play multiple videos simultaneously without much problem... let me restart to 9 and see!
[ August 30, 2003: Message edited by: Jimmy James is COOL ]
-
quote:
Besides... Amiga OS 4 is built on the Linux kernel I believe.
No. It was supposed to built on QNX, before Amiga was a corporation in its own right, I believe, but now I think they just ported the Workbench code to PPC.
There is, however, a BeOS clone based on the Linux kernel, called Blue Eyed OS (http://www.blueeyedos.com/).
-
Only some of the OS was held on ROM, this did mean however that (e.g.) you always had a GUI, even from the "Early Startup Menu" (where you could choose another boot device etc.), and some system commands, libraries and devices were always "resident".
The last Amiga ROM or Kickstart was 3.1, with AmigaOS 3.5 and 3.9 came "AmigaOS ROM Update files". A system program called Setpatch would load specified ROM patches and make them resident on the first boot, and reboot again (adding a few seconds) with these resident for every reboot thereafter. If you didn't like this BTW you could also employ a "kickstart remapper" that relocated the kickstart ROM (and any ROM patches) into Fast Memory (32-bit) in one go on the first boot.
At one time Amiga was considering using QNX as the core of a new AmigaOS, then there was a change of direction to consider using a tiny, optimised linux core. These ideas were abandoned however, and AmigaOS 4.0 will be Classic AmigaOS ported to PowerPC.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7: Defender of Canada:
No. It was supposed to built on QNX, before Amiga was a corporation in its own right, I believe, but now I think they just ported the Workbench code to PPC.
There is, however, a BeOS clone based on the Linux kernel, called Blue Eyed OS (http://www.blueeyedos.com/).
I thought it looked very QNX - ish,
QNX (http://qnx.wox.org/qnx/screenshots/)
There's nought wrong with QNX, perhaps "the" most stable OS out there??